Instead of creating one Summary page for all commands, we
spilt the summary based on the Compiler options and the Linker
options. When the user clicks on the top-level Compiler item or
the Linker item, we show the Summary page. I attached a screen
snapshot to show you what I mean. We felt that dividing it by Compiler
and Linker is more logical since this is the way you see the commands in the
makefile.
Our Summary pages provide round-trip editing. The
only problem occurs when an Additional Option (i.e., and option that is
not in the predefined option list) is entered in the Command Summary. The
software does not know which category to place the option in. To resolve
this, we placed any undefined options in the Miscellaneous page.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March
04, 2004 6:34 AM
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev]
Suggested change to String option command generation.
That sounds good. I will get back to you after I fuel
up on some coffee with some pointers on where to start.
Sean
Evoy
Rational Software - IBM Software Group
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
"Recoskie, Chris"
<crecoskie@xxxxxx>
Sent
by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/03/2004 04:44 PM
Please
respond to
cdt-dev
|
|
To
|
<cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [cdt-dev] Suggested change to String
option command generation.
|
|
I agree with respect to the round-tripping.
It would be nice, but isn’t what I would call essential.
Certainly not the kind of thing we should be focusing on right now when
there are so many more important things to do.
I could start taking a look at the summary page stuff part
time if you want to get me started. It would be nice to start getting TI
involved in contributing more actively.
___________________________________________
Chris Recoskie
Software Designer
IDE Frameworks Group
Texas Instruments, Toronto
-----Original
Message-----
From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sean Evoy
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 4:24 PM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Suggested change to String option command
generation.
Minus the round-trip part, I wanted to provide a summary page that would
aggregate all the option settings together and display it to the user back in
1.2. There is even a skeletal "summary" option page ready to go. The
problem of updating the summary page in response to UI events was a bit more
complex than I had time to deal with back then. The complexity is still there,
but I haven't thought about it in a while and it might not be all that bad with
enough time to do the job right. If you guys at TI are interested in doing
this, let me know and maybe I can point you in the right direction.
I can state with certainty that round-tripping is going to be virtually
impossible given the current architecture.
Sean Evoy
Rational Software - IBM Software Group
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
"Treggiari, Leo"
<leo.treggiari@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/03/2004 02:35 PM
Please
respond to
cdt-dev
|
|
To
|
<cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [cdt-dev] Suggested change to String
option command generation.
|
|
Regarding round-trip editing and Visual Studio. Visual C++ used to
support that, but hasn't since Visual Studio .NET. I don't know if they
gave it up because they didn't think it was used by many people, or because it
was "too hard". Visual C++ still does display the entire
command line and has an edit box for "Additional Options".
Regards,
Leo
-----Original Message-----
From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Chris Wiebe
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 2:27 PM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Suggested change to String option command
generation.
> As a related topic, something we at TI were thinking of doing sometime
> down the road was extending the "catch all" box so that it would
show
> the full command line string that would be passed to the tool (i.e. it
> would pick up the output of all the other options based on their states)
> so that the user a) could actually see everything that would be passed
> to the tool and in what order, and b) so in theory the user could edit
> whatever they wanted in that box and theoretically have it parsed back
> and reflected in the other options in the GUI (e.g. if you turned on the
> symbolic debug checkbox, and then in the "full command to tool"
box you
> removed the -g flag, then the symbolic debug checkbox would get
> unchecked).
This is a great idea, especially the round-trip editing which is very
nice to have. I believe MS Visual Studio does this as well...
Cheers,
Chris
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev